On Fri, 4 Aug 2006, User Freebsd wrote:
On Fri, 4 Aug 2006, Antony Mawer wrote:
On 4/08/2006 3:17 AM, User Freebsd wrote:
On Fri, 4 Aug 2006, Matthew Seaman wrote:
This is cool and all, but why are the concentration solely on PCI
devices? pciconf output doesn't tell you directly what CPUs a
On Fri, 4 Aug 2006, Antony Mawer wrote:
On 4/08/2006 3:17 AM, User Freebsd wrote:
On Fri, 4 Aug 2006, Matthew Seaman wrote:
This is cool and all, but why are the concentration solely on PCI devices?
pciconf output doesn't tell you directly what CPUs are in the system or
even how many there a
On 4/08/2006 3:17 AM, User Freebsd wrote:
On Fri, 4 Aug 2006, Matthew Seaman wrote:
This is cool and all, but why are the concentration solely on PCI
devices? pciconf output doesn't tell you directly what CPUs are in the
system or even how many there are. It doesn't tell you exactly what
sor
On Fri, 4 Aug 2006, Matthew Seaman wrote:
This is cool and all, but why are the concentration solely on PCI
devices? pciconf output doesn't tell you directly what CPUs are in the
system or even how many there are. It doesn't tell you exactly what
sort of memory or disk drives the system uses
Olivier Nicole wrote:
>> pciconf -lv needs to be parsed, this being the hard step, into a string
>> that can be sent via HTTP ... this is the hard part because it has to be
>> done as/in a shell script ... anyone out there *really* good at shell
>> programming?
>
> Why not doing the parsing on
Olivier Nicole wrote:
Why not doing the parsing on the server?
Is there a limit on the size of an HTTP GET request?
Yes. Something like 4k springs to mind. That's what POST is for and
would be easy in Perl, but then we can't use that :-(
--Alex
_
User Freebsd wrote:
On Thu, 3 Aug 2006, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Personally I don't think this stuff should be tracked in any
centralized fashion. I don't particullarly like when our freedom to
choose to do something is tracked or monitored; because it is no
longer a freedom. Maybe that is j
> pciconf -lv needs to be parsed, this being the hard step, into a string
> that can be sent via HTTP ... this is the hard part because it has to be
> done as/in a shell script ... anyone out there *really* good at shell
> programming?
Why not doing the parsing on the server?
Is there a limit
On 4/08/2006 10:38 AM, Tamouh H. wrote:
I've been doing some thinking on it this afternoon, and think
I've figured out about the simpliest way of doing it ... it
still doesn't deal with "fakers" and such, but, IMHO, I don't
think that that is a *huge* problem that needs to be
addressed ... som
> I've been doing some thinking on it this afternoon, and think
> I've figured out about the simpliest way of doing it ... it
> still doesn't deal with "fakers" and such, but, IMHO, I don't
> think that that is a *huge* problem that needs to be
> addressed ... some might do it for a lark, but,
On Thu, 3 Aug 2006, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Personally I don't think this stuff should be tracked in any centralized
fashion. I don't particullarly like when our freedom to choose to do
something is tracked or monitored; because it is no longer a freedom.
Maybe that is just paranoia speaking.
On 4/08/2006 7:30 AM, User Freebsd wrote:
...
STEP 2:
pciconf -lv needs to be parsed, this being the hard step, into a string
that can be sent via HTTP ... this is the hard part because it has to be
done as/in a shell script ... anyone out there *really* good at shell
programming?
See my co
On Fri, 4 Aug 2006, Boris Samorodov wrote:
Hi Marc,
On Thu, 3 Aug 2006 18:30:08 -0300 (ADT) you wrote:
Okay, there has been alot of discussion on this in the other thread,
some of it tangent'd to the original, so, I'm starting off a new
thread as a sort of summary ...
Great idea, but shoul
--- Boris Samorodov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi Marc,
>
>
> On Thu, 3 Aug 2006 18:30:08 -0300 (ADT) you wrote:
>
> > Okay, there has been alot of discussion on this in
> the other thread,
> > some of it tangent'd to the original, so, I'm
> starting off a new
> > thread as a sort of summar
Hi Marc,
On Thu, 3 Aug 2006 18:30:08 -0300 (ADT) you wrote:
> Okay, there has been alot of discussion on this in the other thread,
> some of it tangent'd to the original, so, I'm starting off a new
> thread as a sort of summary ...
Great idea, but should be introduced with care...
> I've been
Sweet, thanks ...
On Thu, 3 Aug 2006, Philip Hallstrom wrote:
pciconf -lv needs to be parsed, this being the hard step, into a string
that can be sent via HTTP ... this is the hard part because it has to be
done as/in a shell script ... anyone out there *really* good at shell
programming?
pciconf -lv needs to be parsed, this being the hard step, into a string that
can be sent via HTTP ... this is the hard part because it has to be done
as/in a shell script ... anyone out there *really* good at shell programming?
What needs to happen is:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:0:2: class=0x060400 car
Okay, there has been alot of discussion on this in the other thread, some
of it tangent'd to the original, so, I'm starting off a new thread as a
sort of summary ...
I've been doing some thinking on it this afternoon, and think I've figured
out about the simpliest way of doing it ... it stil
18 matches
Mail list logo
